High-Intensity Resistance Training Increases Upper Body Muscle and Bone Variables in Resistance Trained Males

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Physiological adaptation consequent to resistance training is thought to be specific to training intensity and training volume. However, studies comparing high intensity and high training protocols on muscle strength and growth in experienced, resistance trained (RT) men are limited. PURPOSE: Compare high volume versus high intensity training on changes in lean body mass, bone mineral content (BMC), bone area (BA), and bone mineral density (BMD) in the upper body. In addition, changes in upper body strength and power were also examined in RT men. METHODS: Following a 2-wk preparatory phase, 29 RT men completed pre-testing (PRE) measures of skeletal and muscular mass via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry to determine BMC, BA, BMD, and lean arm mass (LAM). Peak (PP) and mean (MP) power were determined by a linear force transducer attached to the barbell during one repetition maximum (1RM) assessment of the bench press (BP), as well as during a single repetition at a resistance corresponding to 40, 60, 80% of the participant’s BP 1RM. Participants were then randomly selected to complete either a high volume, low intensity (HV, n = 14, 4 x 10-12RM, 1min rest) or a high intensity, low volume (HI, n = 15, 4 x 3-5RM, 3min rest) whole body resistance training program. Participants completed post-testing following 8-wks (4 d · wk-1) of training. Outcomes were assessed by ANCOVA with posttest means adjusted for pretest differences among the groups. RESULTS: The ANCOVA indicated significant differences for POST BP 1RM (p=0.013, [[Unsupported Character - Symbol Font η]][[Unsupported Character - Symbol Font 2]]=0.214), LAM (p=0.036, [[Unsupported Character - Symbol Font η]][[Unsupported Character - Symbol Font 2]]=0.158), and BMC (p=0.035, [[Unsupported Character - Symbol Font η]][[Unsupported Character - Symbol Font 2]]=0.160). The group means (± standard error) for the adjusted POST variables were HI 121.76 ± 2.25 vs HV 113.11 ± 2.33kg for 1RM BP, HI 10.2 ± 0.11 vs HV 9.84 ± 0.12kg for LAM, and HI 548.56 ± 4.10 vs HV 535.40 ± 4.25g for BMC. No other group differences were observed between the two RT protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study indicate that during an 8-wk training program in RT men that the HI RT protocol may provide a greater stimulus to bone and muscle tissue adaptation than HV. However, no preferential increase in peak or mean power between the two protocols were observed.